From the office of Del. Kathy Szeliga:
Dear Friends,
On Friday, February 25, the 2011 General Assembly passed the halfway point in its 90-day session. Adjournment sine die is April 11 at midnight. At the halfway point, 2,234 bills and 16 resolutions are in the legislative pipeline. There are 937 Senate bills and 6 Senate resolutions, along with 1,297 House bills and 10 House resolutions.
Gay Marriage Update
Of the many issues before the Maryland General Assembly, the one I am getting the most emails, phone calls, and snail mail about is the gay marriage issue.
SB 116 – Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, will redefine marriage in Maryland. It is a short bill that says: “Only a marriage between [a man and a woman] TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED FROM MARRYING is valid in this State.” The bracketed language will be deleted from current law and the all caps bolded wording is the new language. You can read the bill for yourself here:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/billfile/sb0116.htm
This bill passed out of the Senate on Thursday by a vote of 25-21. You can also find the voting list at the link above. SB 116 is now in the House of Delegates. The House version of this bill was heard today, Friday. There were many many people in Annapolis today on both sides of the issue.
I expect the House of Delegates Judiciary Committee to pass a bill, most likely SB 116, in the next couple of weeks. Once the gay marriage bill gets out of committee and on to the floor of the House of Delegates, I will have an opportunity to vote on the bill and issue.
I will support marriage between one man and one woman ONLY. I will not support changing that definition as I believe that marriage is a sacred institution established by God. There are many peripheral issues surrounding this issue and emotions run high on both sides. My position is in no way meant to demean or diminish any of our homosexual friends and family members. However, I am convinced that marriage should be reserved and preserved for one man and one woman.
Annapolis Visitors This Week
In response to what is going on in Wisconsin, there were a couple of protests/rallies in Lawyers Mall this week. Lawyers Mall is an open area in front of the State House where we often have pickets, rallies, and protests.
This is a great poster. I thought you would enjoy it! I’m not sure who the man is, but he and some other people were protesting the union’s protest! FUN! FUN!
Business Fees
Baltimore County is considering revising their licensing fees. These licensing fees have not been looked at in many years – some have not been raised since 1916! This is a great opportunity to consider eliminating some licenses – like the $10 per pool table license. It will also be appropriate to make sure that the license fee covers the cost of issuing and maintaining licenses and that it is not costing taxpayers to do that. Fees should cover the services they incur and licenses should protect consumers and taxpayers. I’m looking forward to working with Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz, his staff, and the Baltimore County Delegation on this issue.
You can find more information on this in the Baltimore Business Journal as well as a quote from me!
Baltimore Business Journal
Thanks for your continued support and encouragement. I am humbled and honored to be representing you and your family in Annapolis.
Kathy Szeliga
Maryland House of Delegates
If money weren’t involved (i.e. tax breaks and benefits etc.) would we really be having this issue?
I wonder how Delegate Szeliga would feel if some religious group or political party told her that SHE couldn’t marry whom she wanted. Actually, it might be a good thing since she then wouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.
It’s wouldn’t be a religious group or a political party that would be telling her that she couldn’t reproduce, it would be nature…
*It*
No, it was me. I know. I’m the one who just typed it.
Is that supposed to be funny?
Because it just comes off as stupid. And Hateful.
It *is* funny, Patrick. Thank you for noticing. And, no, I am leaving the hateful stuff to the Tea Party and the corporations that finance them.
Tom Meyers:
Your comment about reproduction is the exact kind of hate speech Christians are often accused of when talking about this issue (some if it is justified, some of it not).
No, Bob. My comment about the hypothetical instance of Del. Szeliga not being able to marry or reproduce is a joke. The speech of those speaking out against Marriage Equality is similar to the speech that spoke out against the ideas of black people being able to marry white people or even black people being able to marry other white people.
Sorry I have to explain the difference to you.
Tom,
So because it’s branded a joke that makes it ok? If I told a joke with the N-word in it, would that be acceptable?
Black people are born black. White people are born white. I can prove both of these claims with overwhelming evidence, and the way they are born is not a reason to say their marrying each other is in any way wrong or unnatural – it isn’t. Gay people are not born gay. Something goes awry…the million dollar question is what, which neither of us know.
Bob – how do you know that gay people aren’t born gay? I cannot believe how unbelievably pompous, arrogant and without merit that statement is. I have a pair of gay neighbors. They are two very nice guys and while we’re not socially friendly, we’re certainly cordial when we see each other. But what they do in their house in their business. I don’t hide my children from them in case any ‘gay’ might rub off on them.
You live your life and let others live theirs.
I didn’t do a joke where I called someone the N-word so don’t make the comparison.
“Watcher”: Forgive me if my comment came off as pompous or arrogant in any way. There are certain truths that make all of us uncomfortable (did you know Jesus said you commit murder in your heart if you hate?!). That makes me uncomfortable, but it is true.
How kind gay people are is mutually exclusive to this discussion. I have a a few gay friends myself – one of whom I was very close to in my childhood – and their kindness never was an issue to me. She knows my position on the debate and respects it…and I respect hers, even if I do disagree with it.
Tom, you’re ugly. Your mother dresses you funny.
And… you aren’t funny.
Hahhahah– that’s all a joke. Funny, huh?
The only thing about that statement that can even be remotely considered a joke is the fact that you are calling someone ugly, yet you don’t have an avatar.
My question is: why does anyone ask the government for permission to marry in the first place?
This would be a non-issue if the hetero folks would just tell government to buzz off. They shouldn’t be ‘licensing’ *everyone*, they should be licensing *no one*. Marriage is a religious institution.
I agree.
I find it ironic that Christians who hold steadfast to their beliefs are accused of intolerance, yet no one in opposition is tolerating Christians’ beliefs. It’s so paradoxical.
I don’t know what makes people gay, and neither does anyone else – even if they claim to. I do know this: Nature made man and woman to join in a sexual manner. Anything else is like a square peg in a round hole.
Bob- just a few posts earlier, you claimed to know what makes gay people gay. Now you say that nobody can know. I will ask you this, however– If you think being gay is a matter of choice and not genetics, when did you “decide” to be straight?
Also, please stop painting Christianity as a victim in this discussion. As a life-long Catholic, I find it somewhat absurd. Nobody is being intolerant of Christian belief. People are just angry at the attempts of some Christians to legislate that belief onto other people.
I Left: I never claimed to know what makes people gay. I am saying that God made men and women to be attracted to one another. However, like so many of God’s other laws, it was redefined and continues to evolve into something completely unnatural. What’s next, people marrying their dogs? Completely absurd and outrageous today, but who knows in 200 years?
(And before anyone accuses me, no I’m not comparing gay people to animals, settle down. I’m illustrating how unnatural it is.)
The “legislate your beliefs onto other people” notion works both ways, Left. I completely believe that there is an ongoing holocaust of unborn babies happening. Others believe the decision to abort is a personal one because it’s the woman’s body and no one else’s. Tell that to the baby who has no voice. Alas, in 1973 someone else belief was legislated onto millions of unborn babies.
The sin of homosexuality is different from others in that it doesn’t hurt me directly at all. But it does, over time redefine what the ultimate law of our Maker has already set, furthering the decline of our society. Look at the 1950s in terms of morality compared to now. I’m not saying people walked on water back then, but so many things that weren’t morally acceptable back then are no big deal now.
And Left, you do know that your own church is in opposition of same sex marriage, do you not?
“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” James 1:22
The 1950s, like any point in the past, looks more moral because it is in the past. Homosexuality and all of the other ills of society still went on–it simply wasn’t as widely reported. Child abuse was still a huge concern, but it wasn’t as widely reported. The only thing that makes the 1950s seem more moral than today is the fact that 1950s society was better at keeping those problems quiet.
As to the mercurial nature of God’s laws, you said it yourself. They change with the knowledge gleaned from time and experience. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when the notion of women being equal to men was considered “unnatural.” The same can be said of minorities. The Bible and later Church law was written by men working from what they felt was God’s intention. Over time, as we grow as a species, we need to revisit those notions. You bring up dogs (in a ridiculous attempt, regardless of your disclaimer, to associate homosexuality with bestiality). Dogs and other animals have been recorded as having homosexual interaction. Is that not natural? Did something happen in that animal’s life that sent it awry?
The abortion topic is a loaded one. I have some views on it, but this probably isn’t the thread to discuss them.
As to the position of my Church, yes, I do know that they have a stance on homosexuality that I disagree with. I don’t believe that my belonging to a church requires me to agree with everything that the church says or does. I certainly don’t agree with their dismissive view of the sex abuse that occurred in the 1950s and 60s (but wait, I thought those were perfect decades…). I use the Church teachings to guide my faith, but in the end, it’s about my personal relationship with God.
Left, I think I made it clear that the 50s weren’t perfect. Corruption has existed since the Fall of Man.
God’s laws never ordained men have dominion over women, nor that white people are superior to black people or any other ethnicity. That was all a result of the corruption of humans. The civil rights movements in history were merely righting gross wrongs.
“The Bible and later Church law was written by men working from what they felt was God’s intention.”
I’m not sure where your theology comes from, but it clearly doesn’t coincide with 2 Timothy 3:16. To change his law to better suit the desires of the current society would qualify as heresy.
It’s common for people who don’t know Scripture to think that God’s laws don’t apply to present day….but this is a topic that cannot be deduced within hours or even days. I’ve spent the past year studying Scripture for the first time and while I understand a lot more, I will continue to study it more using proper hermeneutics (look it up).
People tend to twist Scripture to suit their desires – some of which are more sinister than others (KKK, Nazis and the Westboro Baptist Church). We’ll all have to answer for our sins, myself included.
And for the record, God loves gay people. 🙂
Bob, don’t insult me. I’m well-versed in hermeneutics. Far more so, I would think, than you are. Further, what you refer to as “God’s law” is based on something that Jesus never addressed. It was addressed in Leviticus along with a litany of things that the far right doesn’t seem interested in legislating on the rest of the population. As for your reference to 2 Timothy, you may want to reconsider your choice of “proof.” Not only is that letter written BY a man TO a man, but it’s not even agreed upon to truly be the work of Paul. Scholarly consensus has dated all three of the Pastoral Epistles as being written around the early 2nd Century. Basically, your source of “proof” actually reinforces my initial argument.
The reason I bring up the failings of man is that, like the social treatment of women and minorities, the treatment of homosexuals is a direct result of human beings twisting the Bible to their own world view. This only started to change in the late 15th century, with the conflict between Biblical Humanism and Biblical Scholasticism (look them up).
Basically, until the late 1400s, the “Bible” as people understood it was delivered via the Church. It wasn’t until Erasmus and (to a somewhat lesser extent) the Wycliffite/Lollard movement that people began to have the opportunity to read the Bible themselves. I doubt it was a coincidence that people began to question the “church law” that had previously been sold to them as “God’s law.”
Smug doesn’t suit you, Bob. You may want to check into a person’s academic background next time before you decide to condescend.
Left, no offense was intended. I had no way of knowing your academic or theological background. Many people don’t know what hermeneutics are, and that’s fine.
It sounds like you do not subscribe to sola scriptura, which is consistent with the Vatican’s belief. You’ve probably figured out that I’m a protestant and that anything outside of the Word of the Lord can be erroneous and sometimes heresy.
I reject the notion that the epistles were written in the 2nd century. Paul interacted with the original disciples. Also, I’ve never heard the idea that Paul wasn’t the writer of the books of Timothy. It’s quite explicit in its identification of author at the beginning of both letters. I can’t even find Catholic teachings to the contrary, so I’m not sure where that comes from.
I don’t particularly subscribe to sola scriptura. I tend to fall into the category of Biblical Humanism as espoused by Erasmus (if you have the Biblical Scholasticists representing the medieval view of the church, and the Wycliffite/Protestant groups representing the primacy of the Scripture, Erasmian Biblical Humanism falls somewhere in between–Erasmus himself was often ridiculed by both sides, because each side thought that Erasmus sided with the other side).
Erasmus supported going back to the original (or the oldest extant copies of) texts, to recapture or re-interpret what had come to be thought of as “law.” While I don’t agree with everything he writes, Bart Ehrman’s book “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” offers a useful summation of the scholarship questioning whether or not Paul was the actual author of the Pastoral Epistles. While Ehrman is the latest to bring up these questions, scholars have eyed those three epistles as somewhat suspect since the early 1800s.
Basically, it’s an interpretation of Biblical texts from a combined approach, using equal parts theology and philology to study the Scripture.
I am looking at the SB116 link that she posted here because I want to see who voted to pass the bill and I can’t figure it out. Can someone help me out? I want to email them all a thank you note.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/votes/senate/0201.htm
Thank you for your help Tom!
I have only five words. Separation of church and state.
Del. Szeliga seems awfully bigoted. A shame that she’s out of touch with the changing world, and will end up on the wrong side of history.
What an intolerant statement, Steve. I don’t see anyone here putting labels on those who support the bill.
Your calling her bigoted is……well, bigoted in and of itself. What a paradox!